Obamacare, rather than being Socialist, is a huge Private-Sector giveaway
Debate Rounds (3)
1st Round: Opening Arguments
2nd Round: Rebuttals
3rd Round: Conclusion
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Pro's Opening Argument:
Obamacare's most drastic provision is one that relies on the idea of every citizen being required to have insurance, whether this insurance is provided through services such as Medicare or Medicaid or is acquired on the private market.
Rather than offering a socialized plan, or making existing socialized plans more accessible, all the new law does is (vaguely) penalize people for not having insurance and offer a subsidy for people who are both too rich to be on state assistance yet too poor to easily afford care on the private market.
The end result of this is a greater influx of cash into the insurance industry who would not otherwise have these customers. By shifting the burden of care to the private sector in greater amounts, the end result is a gigantic boon to those providing finance for care.
Any law in which the net result is more money being shoved into the hands of large private businesses can hardly be classified as "socialist."
Thank you. On to the debate.
Socialism has been defined for this debate as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, or capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." The fundamental purpose of insurance companies is the distribution of capital, and therefore, they can reasonably be considered "the means of distribution of capital".
Obamacare contains provisions that create new fees for drug manufacturers and health insurance companies. It also gives tax incentives to small businesses that buy their employees health insurance. It prohibits health insurance companies from declining coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and also requires them to allow anyone under 26 years old to stay on their parent's health care plans.
These provisions give the government some control over health insurance companies. The government was unhappy about health insurance companies refusing care to people with pre-existing conditions and not allowing 25 year olds to stay on their parents" health care plan, so it passed a law requiring insurance companies to change those practices. That is control.
Thus, the government has exerted more control over health insurance companies through Obamacare, and therefore, Obamacare is a step towards socialism. It is not completely socialist, because it does not make health insurance providers OWNED by the government, but it is a step toward socialism nonetheless.
Also, the tax credits that are given to businesses that provide their employees health insurance are not insignificant to a small business (interestingly enough, the only kind of business eligible for such credits). This will undoubtedly affect the business policy of many small businesses, an example of government control of the production of capital, which is socialist by the definition established for this debate.
Lastly, because Obamacare creates new fees for the private sector (mentioned above) and exerts considerable government control over the private sector, I do not believe that it should be classified as a huge private-sector giveaway.
voxprojectus forfeited this round.
While is is true that Obamacare does not offer a socialized plan, it does create health insurance exchange pools that are overseen by the government.
While it may be true that the result of the law will eventually be an influx of cash into the insurance industry, it is possible that in the long run, the cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions and paying government fees will outweigh the benefit of having more customers, and even if it does not, I still argue that a program that takes away so much autonomy from private business is socialist leaning, and certainly not a private sector giveaway.
I hope my opponent will respond.
Please vote Con
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: pity this was a ff.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.